Assessment of EoI:400



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 400 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: La Amazonía Peruana está conformada por bosques, diferentes tipos de reservas y ecosistemas. Tienen un papel preponderante en la pervivencia de los Pueblos Indígenas, de la humanidad y en la preservación de la biodiversidad (Madre Tierra)

Evidence B:The area of the project is all the Peruvian Amazon region, this is why the score is high. However, the project may be too broad in geographical scope.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Tienen varios proyectos en marcha que apuntan a la mitigación del cambio climático, los mismos que deberán realizar ajustes y/ o negociaciones diversas a nivel local y nacional para lograr una plena implementación de los acuerdos sobre Cambio Climático.

Evidence B:Yes, all the Peruvian Amazon is important for climate mitigation. Again, the scope of this project may be too broad.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: AIDASEP es una organizacion indigena coformada por varias organizaciones regionales, comunidades y asociados incluyendo mujeres. Si embargo para la implementación de los proyectos con donantes aún tienen que contar con la autorización de las autoridades nacionales y los hombres indígenas son quienes llegan al poder politico/económico

Evidence B:The project aims to cover all areas where indigenous people live. Some of those territories are not fully under their control, they may be under the Peruvian Protected Area Agency purview.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: El proyecto explica claramente el significado cultural del área de los Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Locales, la importancia de cada uno de los ecosistemas para la vida y para la práctica de la espiritualidad indígena y del conocimiento ancestral indigena.

Evidence B:Because the area is so broad, the statements on cultural significance are broad as well.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: Hay una larga lista de riesgos en la zona con las actividades extractivas, desmedida tala de arboles, caza y pesca ilegal, etc., actividades que ponen en riesgo la existencia de los PICL y la conservación holística de los diversos ecosistemas y nichos ecológicos, de las áreas protegidas y sitios sagrados . Debido a la pandemia los riesgos son la escasez de agua y alimentos y la no práctica y goce de los derechos colectivos de los PI. Se pone en alto riesgo la vida de los niños, mujeres y ancianos

Evidence B:Some areas suffer more stress, especially those in frontier regions. There are many in remote areas that face fewer threats.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Como PICL conocen los derechos colectivos a nivel nacional e internacional, sin embargo en la implementación de proyectos se necesita contar con el aval y reconocimiento de los IP como titulares y poseedores de derechos, como seres capaces y responsables de decidir su futuro dentro del marco de la libre determinación, consulta, consentimiento libre, previo e informado, derecho al reparto de beneficios justo y equitativo y el derecho al veto entre otros

Evidence B:There are many laws and regulations, but those need to be improved. Also, those that do exist need to be effectively implemented.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: En Peru hay algunas leyes que apoyan la conservación de algunas áreas en la Amazonia y el gobierno ha mostrado algún interés de trabajar con PI. Mientras las leyes no cuenten con presupuesto y la debida normativa serán solamente leyes y políticas de papel. La confianza deberá ser creada y cultivada entre el gobierno y los PI

Evidence B:Evidence shows that some agencies in the Peruvian government do support IPLC-led conservation where other agencies see them as an obstacle for progress.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: En el documento se puede observar que algunos proyectos se implementaron más allá de la fase piloto con el apoyo de sus técnicos y equipos de la comunidad. La inclusion de las mujeres será necesaria en los programas y actividades a futuro

Evidence B:The project highlights relatively successful projects in the Northern Peruvian Amazon (Alto Mayo) and in Southeastern Peru (Amarakaeri). Those experiences may be scaled up.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: AIDESEP administra y ejecuta al mismo tiempo proyectos en diversas ramas y regiones que apoyarán y complementarán proyectos relevantes de los PI sobre conservación, biodiversidad y cambio climático, el empoderamiento de los PI y la seguridad de vida de los PI y de la existencia de la biodiversidad y sus ecosistemas

Evidence B:The project provides information about 7 projects that could be complementary for the one proposed here.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 22/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 22/30

Average Total Score: 22/30



Performance of EoI 400 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: La propuesta propone trabajar los problemas que afectan a los PI, a sus tierras, territorios, aguas y recursos de acuerdo con los objetivos y áreas de la Iniciativa de Conservación Incluyente como son la biodiversidad, cambio climatico, degradación de las tierras, etc. Además incluye la participación de las mujeres, que se espera sea plena y efectiva

Evidence B:The project is broad and therefore partially aligned.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: Los objetivos y logros en cuanto a actividades sobre cambio climatico, salvaguardias, educación de las comunidades , participación en reuniones internacionales . etc. están claramente definidos. Importante será hacer un seguimiento continuo para velar por la realización de las actividades propuestas a tiempo y con los actores sociales y recursos técnicos necesarios

Evidence B:There are 5 objectives in the project. Three of them are relatively explained while two are only mentioned. There is no clear theory of change nor focus to this project.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: La organización conoce los graves desafíos que tiene su región en cuanto a la pérdida de la biodiversidad , a las consecuencias negativas del cambio climático, por lo cual propone objetivos claros para obtener los resultados esperados

Evidence B:There is not enough detail to assess this question. Main feedback is for the proponents to focus on one or two things in order to have a larger impact.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Como han desarrollado diferentes tipos de proyectos con diversos socios y comunidades, bajo una buena administración de los recursos económicos de ICI complementados con otras fuentes si se lograran las actividades propuestas

Evidence B:There are too many objectives and to do all of them properly it would be too expensive.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: En el documento detallan algunas iniciativas concretas a nivel nacional para la continuación de las actividades planificadas , así como de fondos de donantes

Evidence B:Most of the sources of co-financing is in-kind.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: Los beneficios serán sustanciales y reales en cuanto a la tierra. No hay datos sobre beneficios en cuanto a áreas marinas

Evidence B:If all the Peruvian Amazon region is protected and effectively managed, yes the impact would be transformational. However, there is not a clear path to that end.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Propone la estimación de areas protegidas y territorios bioculturales indígenas y áreas de conservación administradas por los PICL, así como la restauración de tierras

Evidence B:There are statements in this direction that do not contain enough detail.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: AIDESEP tiene experiencia en la ejecución de proyectos no tan prolongados, propone socios que la ayudaran a seguir con las actividades propuestas a mediano plazo

Evidence B:The project is too general.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: La organización está consciente de la problemática ambiental y de justicia social que afecta a los PICL, por lo tanto sus proyectos apuntan a la atención y resolución de esos problemas a nivel local, nacional e internacional

Evidence B:There is an effort in the text to build on national priorities.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Menciona el trabajo con mujeres indígenas en una actividad específica y en la creación de un documento, habla de incluir a las mujeres en las diversas actividades, tienen que ser mas específicos en cuanto a su participación

Evidence B:It seems that there is a gender perspective well established in the proponent’s approach.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: La organización conoce cuales son los problemas actuales que afectan a los PICL y al medio ambiente, por lo tanto proponen actividades para superar esos problemas en beneficio de los PI y de la misma Madre Naturaleza

Evidence B:For those activities where there is moer detail, yes- there is a transformative potential.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 34/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 18/40

Average Total Score: 26/40



Performance of EoI 400 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Es una organización indígena con socios de diversas regiones y comunidades indígenas. Participaran solo como AIDASEP en la ICI

Evidence B:AIDESEP is a national-level indigenous organization.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: Es una organización con cuarenta años de trabajo en beneficio de los PICL y del medio ambiente

Evidence B:Yes, according to the references presented for other projects.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: Cuenta con socios locales, nacionales e internacionales, Indígenas y no-Indígenas que apoya y fortalece el trabajo de AIDESEP

Evidence B:AIDESEP does not specify what other base organizations would have a clear role in this project.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: No han tenido la oportunidad de trabajar con proyectos GEF, sin embargo tienen una amplia experiencia ganada con otros proyectos realizados con donantes

Evidence B:There is no evidence in the text that there is high capacity in AIDESEP to carry out this complex and broad project.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: Su presupuesto anual sobrepasa el millón de dólares y cuentan siempre con el apoyo de donantes de varios países

Evidence B:AIDESEP recently faced very public challenges in working with Rainforest Foundation Norway. Independent and transparent management could be an issue.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 0/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Tiene conocimiento y comprensión del alcance de las salvaguardias en cuanto a la pervivencia de los PI y conocimiento tradicional

Evidence B:0



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 29/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 16/30

Average Total Score: 26/30



Performance of EoI 400 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)